PIDILITE INDUSTREIS LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5482/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 55329 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KETAN PANCHMIA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

1 PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI C BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI T R SOOD, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM ITA NO. 5482/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2007-08) PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD REGENT CHAMBERS, 7 TH FL JAMNALAL BALAJ MARG NARIMAN POINT - MUMBAI 211 VS THE ADDL COMMR OF INCOME TAX RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAACP4156B ASSESSEE BY SHRI KETAN PANCHMIA REVENUE BY SHRI DEVI SINGH DT.OF HEARING 3 RD OCT 2011 DT OF PRONOUNCEMENT 5 TH OCT 2011 PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 3.5.2010 OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE AY 2007-08. 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECT GROU NDS IN THIS APPEAL: I) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REWORKING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE CLAIM U/S 80OIB BY EXC LUDING DEPB BENEFITS RECEIVED FROM CALCULATION OF THE PROFITS OF THE PURPOS E OF DEDUCTION/S 80IB. HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT EXPORTE3D GOODS WERE ALSO MANUFACTURED IN THE UNIT, WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AND DEPB BENEF ITS CANNOT BE TREATED AS NOT DERIVED FROM THE UNDERTAKING. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT NO ADJUSTMENT BE MADE TO T HE PROFITS OF THE UNDERTAKING AS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AND CLAIM U/S 80IB BE ALLOWED IN FULL AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. II) ) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT FOR DEDUCTIO N U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF PROFIT OF WINDMILLS. 2 PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CORR ECTLY CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA AND THERE WAS NO NEED TO DISALLO W THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IA. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA BE ALLOWED AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. III) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING RS. 8,.92,628/- INCURRED FOR SOFTWARE RELAT ED WORK BY TREATING THE SAME AS OF CAPITAL NATURE. HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NORMAL BUSINESS EXPENSES OF REVENUE NATURE AND WERE N OT OF CAPITAL NATURE. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE OF RS. 8,92,628/- BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IV) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING RS. 12,29,168/- INCURRED FOR TRADEMARK RELAT ED SERVICES OUT OF THE LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES AS OF CAPITAL NATURE. HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NORMAL BUSINESS EXPANSES OF REVENUE NATURE AND WERE NO T OF CAPITAL NATURE. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE OF RS. 13,29,168/- BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. V) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING RS. 18,35,000/ BY APPLYING RULE 8D HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT B ORROWED FOR EARNING TAX FREE DIVIDEND HE ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT PART OF THE INVEST MENT IS OF STRATEGIC IN NATURE AND NO EXPENDITURE WAS REQUIRED TO MANAGE TH ESE INVESTMENTS. HE ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT HIS PREDECESSOR HAD ALLOWED APPELLANTS ARGUMENT AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION ABOUT WHY STRATEG IC INVESTMENTS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. 3 GROUND NO.1 IS REGARDING EXCLUSION OF DEPB BENEFI T FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB. 4 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AR AS WELL AS THE LD DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORDS. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT T HIS ISSUE IS NOW SETTLED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. KALPATARU COLOURS AND CHEMICALS REPORTED IN 328 ITR 451 (BOM) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY 3 PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD INDIA V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX REPORTED IN 317 ITR 218(SC). ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5 GROUND NO.2 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF PROFIT OF WINDMILLS. 6 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AR AS WELL AS THE LD DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORDS. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT T HIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2006-07 IN ITA NO.3355/MUM/2009 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.6.2011. 6.1 THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 6 OF ITS ORDER, CITED SUPR A, HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THIS ISSUE AS UNDER: 6. THE SECOND UNIT AT SANGLI & SATARA STARTED COMMERC IAL PRODUCTION IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-2001. THE LEARNED A.R. CONT ENDED THAT THE BENEFIT OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) SHOULD BE GRANTED AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT OF PROFIT F ROM THIS ELIGIBLE UNIT IN PREFERENCE TO THE SPECIAL BENCH ORDER. AGAIN WE ARE NO T CONVINCED WITH THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS CONSIDERING A CASE IN WHICH T HE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WAS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME. IT CAN BE NOTICED FROM PA GE 70 OF THE REPORT. THE DISCUSSION STARTS FROM PARA 13, WHEREBY THE HONBLE H IGH COURT HAS REPRODUCED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80-IA. THEREAFTER C ERTAIN IMPORTANT FACTORS HAVE BEEN NOTED ON PAGE 69 AND THEN AT PAGE 70 IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT: FROM READING OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEA R THAT THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WERE THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME, DURING THE PREVIOUS YE AR RELEVANT TO INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND EVERY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEA RS. FROM HERE IT TRANSPIRES THAT THIS JUDGMENT HAS BEEN RENDERED IN TH E CONTEXT OF A BUSINESS WHICH HAD INCOME ONLY FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND THERE WAS NO INCOME FROM ANY NON-ELIGIBLE UNIT. IT IS IN THIS BACKDROP OF THE FACT THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IF THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OF T HE ELIGIBLE UNIT HAS BEEN SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME THEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB-SECTION (5), IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED THAT THERE IS NO BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS FOR THE PURPOSES OF REDUCING THE PROFIT EARNED IN THE YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80-IA. IT CAN BE EXPLAINED IN A SIMPLE MANNER. SUPPOSE THERE IS ONLY ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND IN THE YEAR OF SETTING UP THERE IS LOSS FROM BUSINESS AT RS.100. SIMULTANEOUSLY THE ASSESSEE EARNS INCOME FROM `OTHER SOURCES IN THE SAM E ELIGIBLE BUSINESS TO THE TUNE OF RS.150. EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.100 IN THE YEAR 4 PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD OF SETTING UP, BUT SUCH LOSS WAS SET OFF AGAINST IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS THEREBY BRINGING THE BUSINESS LOSS TO RS. NIL. IT IS IN THIS SCENARIO THAT THERE WOULD BE NO BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS FRO M THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS SO AS TO ENABLE T HE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.80-IA IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS WHEN THERE IS PROFIT. THE FACTS OF SANGLI & SATARA UNITS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. IN THIS CASE THERE WAS LOSS OF RS.16.73 CRORES FROM THE ELIGIBLE UNIT WHICH WAS SE T OFF AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME OF OTHER NON-ELIGIBLE UNIT. THIS FACT HAS BEE N MENTIONED IN THE DETAIL SHEET SUPPLIED BY THE LEARNED A.R. AT THE TIME OF HE ARING. IT, THEREFORE, BECOMES EVIDENT THAT THE LOSS FROM THE ELIGIBLE UNI T WAS SET OFF AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME OF OTHER NON-ELIGIBLE UNIT AND NOT T HE INCOME OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT W OULD BE APPLICABLE WHEN THERE IS PROFIT FROM THE ELIGIBLE UNIT AND THE O NLY SOURCE OF INCOME IS THAT FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. AS THE PRESENT ASSESSEE HAD EARNED INCOME FROM NON-ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IN THE YEAR OF LOSS IN THE YE AR OF COMMENCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION IN THE ELIGIBLE UNIT, WHICH WA S SET OFF, THE RATIO DECIDED OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT WOULD NOT APPLY. BUT FOR THE JUDGMENT IN VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILL S (P) LTD. (SUPRA), THE LD. AR HAS NOTHING TO DISTINGUISH THE SPECIAL BENCH ORD ER. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER IT IS SEEN THAT THE JUDGM ENT RENDERED IN VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) IS NO T APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. RATHER THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN JETTISONING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA BY RELYING ON THE SPECIAL BENCH ORDER IN THE CASE OF GOLDMINE SHARES AND FINANC E (P) LTD. (SUPRA). WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. T HIS GROUND IS NOT ALLOWED. 6.2 ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 7 GROUND NO.3 IS REGARDING CAPITALISATION OF SOFTWA RE EXPENSES. 8 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AR AS WELL AS THE LD DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORDS. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT T HIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED HAS AND ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN C ASE FOR THE AY 2006-07 IN ITA NO.3355/MUM/2009 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.6.2011. 8.1 THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 8 OF ITS ORDER, CITED SUPR A, HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THIS ISSUE AS UNDER: 5 PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS NOTICED THAT THE SPECIAL B ENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES VS. DCIT [(2008) 111 ITD 112 (DEL.) (SB)] HAS DECIDED SIMILAR ISSUE RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FI LE OF A.O. WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE ABOUT THE DEDUCTIBILITY OR OTHERWISE OF SO FTWARE EXPENSES ON CERTAIN PARAMETERS LAID DOWN IN THAT CASE. BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT GROUN D BE ALSO DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORD ER ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O. FOR TAKING A F RESH DECISION ON THIS ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING THE MANDATE OF THE SPECIAL BENCH O RDER IN THE CASE OF AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES (SUPRA) AFTER ALLOWING A REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8.2 ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES (SUPRA) AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9 GROUND NO.4 IS REGARDING CAPITALIZATION OF TRADEM ARK RELATED EXPENSES. 10 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AR AS WELL AS THE LD DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORDS. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THOUGH THIS ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR THE AY 2004-05 AND 2006-07; HOWEVER, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON, APART FROM THE EXPENDITURE ON REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARK, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INCURRED THE EXPENSES REGARDING LEGAL FEE, PROCESSING FEE FOR RENEWAL OF THE EXISTI NG TRADEMARK. THEREFORE, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TO THE EXTENT THE EX PENDITURE INCURRED FOR RENEWAL OF THE TRADEMARK MAY BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE. 6 PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD 10.1 THE LD DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ALRE ADY BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 11 AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2006-07 IN PARA 10 HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER: 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ABOVE REFERRED PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S.DEPENNING & DEPENNING WHICH IS NOT A LEGAL FIRM BUT ENGAGED IN PROVIDING SERVICES RELATING TO PATENT, TRAD EMARK, DESIGN AND COPYRIGHT. COPIES OF BILLS ISSUED BY M/S.DEPENNING & DEPENNING ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGES 32 TO 34 OF THE PAPER BOOK FROM WHICH IT CA N BE SEEN THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS FILING PATE NT APPLICATION INCLUDING TRANSLATION FEE / AMENDMENT FEE IN CANADA, RUSSIA AND TAIWAN. IT IS NOTICED THAT FIRSTLY THERE IS NOTHING LIKE LEGAL CH ARGES INVOLVED IN SUCH PAYMENTS. SECONDLY, THIS PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE FOR O BTAINING TRADEMARK. AS TRADEMARK HAVE BEEN INCLUDED U/S.32(1)(II) IN THE CATEGORY OF `INTANGIBLE ASSET AFTER 1.4.1998, THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE AS SESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE NOTHING BUT COST OF TRADEMARKS. SUCH AMOUNT WOULD BE CAPITALIZED AND QUALIFY FOR DEPRECIATION AS PER LAW. THE LEARNED A.R . HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. FINLAY MILLS LTD. [(1951) 20 ITR 475] IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THE E XPENSES FOR REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARK ARE DEDUCTIBLE IN FULL. IT IS SEEN THAT T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WERE 1 943-44 AND 1944-45. AS THE NECESSARY AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO SECTION 32(1)(II) BY SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING TRADEMARK IN THE DEFINITION OF INTANGIBLE ASSET, THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN FINLAY MILLS LTD. (SUPRA)WOULD NOT APP LY AS THE CASE WOULD BE GOVERNED BY SECTION 32(1). IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DENIED DEDUCTION BY RELYING ON HIS ORDER FOR THE IMMED IATELY PRECEDING YEAR 2005-2006. ON A PERTINENT QUERY THE LEARNED A.R. ADM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE ADDITION MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 2006 AND DID NOT AGITATE IT FURTHER. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND THE L EGAL POSITION DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE B Y DISMISSING THIS GROUND. 11.1 SO FAR AS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED, WHICH IS C OMMON FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS IN THE AY 2006-07, THE SAM E IS DISALLOWED BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA). 7 PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD 11.2 AS REGARDS THE EXPENDITURE ON RENEWAL OF THE T RADEMARK IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED AND IF FOUND THAT A NY PART OF THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RENEWAL OF THE EX ISTING TRADEMARK OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXISTING TRADEMARK, THEN THE SAME SHALL BE ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY AND DECIDE THIS ISSUE, AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORD INGLY, THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 12 THE GROUND NO.5 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14 A R.W.R 8D 13 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AR AS WELL AS THE LD DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORDS. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INV OLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE IS 2007-08 AND RULE 8D IS APPLICABLE ONLY PROSPECTIVEL Y I.E. FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT; THEREFO RE, THE MATTER NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJU DICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE LATEST DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE MFG CO LTD VS DCIT REPORTED IN 328 ITR 81. WE, THEREFOR E, RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION CITED SUPRA AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 14 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 5 TH DAY OF OCT 2011. SD/ SD/- ( T R SOOD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 5 TH OCT 2011 RAJ* 8 PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LTD COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI